“New Kind of Liberalism” – A Critical Review and Evangelical Response to Love Wins by Rob Bell

Part 5 of 5: Bell’s “Cross and Resurrection”

By Trace L. Howard

Bell argues that the cross represents reconciliation and the place where “peace was made.” (125). While true at a certain level, Bell believes this means that all people actually have already been saved and that God is simply waiting on them to come to an “awareness” of that reality and respond to Him accordingly.  Moreover, Bell’s view of the cross is much broader than merely “substitution.”  Instead, “substitution” is simply one “metaphor” among many to describe how Jesus has made a way to God.  For Bell, limiting the nature of the cross to “substitution” reduces the atonement to an idea that is too narrow. He says that metaphors like “redemption” and “reconciliation” and phrases like “victory in battle,” “Jesus conquering death,” and “a defendant going free” are all different ways to talk about the same thing.  (127-128). He argues that certain metaphors have been more meaningful at different periods of time, depending on the particular culture, and that in our current culture, metaphors like blood and sacrifice aren’t as meaningful.  Instead, he prefers to tell the Jesus story in metaphors the current reader would understand and saying things like “sacrifice, blood atonement, sin, and guilt” are outdated ways of talking about the Jesus story. (128-129). The heart of this story for Bell, rather than the notion of “substitution,” is God showing up in human flesh and blood.  Yet, he never states why the incarnation was necessary; he fails to discuss that Jesus became the God-man in order to “give His life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45) – and that is “substitution”!

Bell addresses the issue of “resurrection” through the nebulous concept of “death leading to life.” His discussion, however, rarely describes any kind of literal, bodily resurrection; instead, he uses words that are more nuanced like “rebirth” in the context of personal life.  One wonders whether Bell’s view of resurrection is more existential and “inspirational” than literal. This becomes particularly evident in his discussion of the cross and resurrection as being personal – personal not in the sense that these events mean the removal of personal sin, guilt, and condemnation but rather in the sense that they impact our life every single day; as Bell says, “it is a pattern, a rhythm, a practice, a reality rooted in the elemental realities of creation, extending to the very vitality of our soul.” (135). Jesus thus becomes the example and the assurance that this pattern of death and rebirth (Bell does not say “resurrection”) is the way into the only life that actually sustains and inspires.  When “we leave behind the old ways . . . life will flow to us in thousands of small ways as we die to our egos, our pride, our need to be right, our self-sufficiency, our rebellion, and our stubborn insistence that we deserve to get our way.” (136) – this is Bell at his best.

Bell reasons that this “new kind of life” which God offers is available to everyone.  Yet, God is not simply saving individuals from sin and death; to merely say this, according to Bell, is to shrink the gospel when God instead wants to restore everything “on earth and heaven.” The traditional story of what Bell calls “in-ness” is not true to the story that includes all things and people in heaven and on earth. (135). Thus, Bell says that “individuals are invited to see their story in the context of a far larger story, one that includes all of creation.” (134). This big, universal story, in effect, is what the cross and resurrection accomplished.

Response

Bell’s View of The Cross. Bell marginalizes the NT story about the cross and its importance.  What Bell calls metaphors, words like justification, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption, have precise theological nuances and explain aspects of the cross that were necessary for us to have a relationship with a holy, righteous, and just God. These words are significant to Paul’s entire argument in Romans 3.  Bell also simply ignores important words in the NT related to the idea of “substitution,” such as the use of the prepositions huper (“on behalf of” – 2 Cor. 5:21) and anti (“instead of” – Mark 10:45).

Bell’s Liberal Tendencies. Bell’s argument that we need to recontextualize the cross for current culture and create new metaphors in order to make the cross relevant is nothing more than modern theological “liberalism.” Bell’s attempt to do so is no different than Rudolph Bultmann, who demythologized the text of the NT in order to make the message about a “resurrected Christ” palatable and relevant for his current, secular culture. Like Bultmann, Bell has created his own metanarrative in order to make the Christian story more acceptable to his audience.

Moreover, the NT explicitly states that the literal, bodily resurrection of Christ in time and space is the foundation for the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:12-19). It is much greater than simply inspirational, as Bell suggests.  It is unique; it is the most significant eschatological event in all of human history. I once had a professor at the University of Chicago who would routinely say, “Jesus did not literally rise from the dead because dead people don’t rise from the dead!” He said this, while still arguing that Jesus does “rise” in our hearts and inspires us to live more sacrificially.  My former professor’s belief regarding the “inspirational” aspect of Jesus’ death and resurrection does not appear that dissimilar to what Bell is saying.  In fact, Bell’s view sounds like the old “moral influence” theory of the atonement which has been around a long time – as far back as Peter Abelard (1079-1142) – and which became popular in Protestant liberalism among such writers as Schleiermacher who called the atonement a “moral uplift, a new attitude toward life.”  Bell seems to agree.  Unfortunately, this reasoning is pure sophistry and is an entirely different story than the one told by the NT writers.

Final Thoughts Regarding Love Wins

I am deeply concerned because Bell’s message will resonate with many in our secular, postmodern culture – people whose eternal destinies truly lie in the balance.  I fear that many will be led into a false sense of security, believing that in the end God saves everyone. That, however, is not the message of the Bible, and particularly the NT. There are eternal implications regarding the decisions we make this side of death – decisions specifically about who Jesus is and what He did on a cross some two-thousand years ago.

A good friend of mine, in a personal conversation, recently said that Rob Bell ironically is really a modern day illustration of the rich young man.  He is a picture of success – young, cool, hip, the pastor of a mega-church, popular author, educated, etc. He is the rich young ruler of our age. When Christ tells him, “You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and mother,’” Bell likely could respond, with some measure of “credibility,” that he has done all these things from his youth. But when Christ tells Bell to follow Him (no matter the cost), this is where Bell falls short.  Bell does not want to follow Christ; he instead wants to follow a God he has made up, the God that is palatable to him – the kind of God that doesn’t lead people to think that He is “mean,” “vicious,” “cruel,” “narrow,” or even “holy and angry toward sin.” You know, the God that doesn’t send people to hell. So when Christ clearly teaches about His Father’s eternal or unending judgment, Bell walks away very sad, because he believes that he has a great deal to lose. The irony is quite remarkable.

For whom does the “bell” toll? It tolls for thee Rob Bell.

Incoming search terms:

• A new kind of liberalism
• A new kind of liberalism trace howard

This entry was posted on Monday, September 12th, 2011 at 11:15 am and is filed under Get Equipped.